GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives

Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2001-04 > 0986487406


From:
Subject: Re: Tomlinson, Elizabeth PART I
Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 12:16:46 EDT



In a message dated 4/5/01 2:25:00 AM, writes:

<< There was an estate, hence the administration granted in the PCC. It did
not have to be large, just LEGAL. >>

Please bear with me. I do understand the legal arguments, but I have always
thought that the court record in question must either be in error or
interpreted wrongly because the conclusions that have been drawn from it do
not agree with the other evidence that exists.

The problem is that you are treating Elizabeth Tomlinson like a noble lady
with a will and an estate. We have seen the content of her will and there was
nothing there to be executor of -- the distributions were simply requests
that Lord Dudley give the named family members some money. To call her
possessions an 'estate' is a joke -- and it was a joke when it went to court
as a contest by Dud Dudley. By the time this went to court there was
absolutely no estate to argue about. The case was a just continuation of Dud
Dudley's attempt to exploit his father.

We simply have a record that there was a court hearing -- not a transcription
of what was said or a record of what came to pass. There is no real knowledge
of what it was about. It could not have been about much because Elizabeth did
not have any possessions to argue about or contest. Thus, Hansen has taken
the 'translated' record as proof of a relationship when there is much more to
it that that. Having been in courts myself, I realize they are not the best
place to look for truth, as there is a dispute to begin with ... and
generally someone is lying. At the best, the litigants have conflicting
points of view.

Elizabeth's 1629 will was verbal and given to her son-in-law, Thomas Dudley
and Henry Jevon, who were her executors. Edward Bagley was not the executor
of this verbal will not the one trusted to make her final bequests come to
fruition.

<< If Edward Bagley were GRANDSON of Elizabeth Tomlinson by way of his
mother, the phrase would have read "nepoti ex filia" as it did here, on that
same page. "nepoti ex matre" neans nephew out of/by way of his mother--no
ambiguity. >>

But there was confusion in the original manuscript -- filius (or perhaps even
filia) was indeed crossed out and repaced by 'matre'. We need to see the
original document, not the translation.

At the time this went to court it was at the instigation of Dud Dudley who
was angry with his father. According to my interpretation, Edward Bagley was
just about to learn the nature of his mother's relationship to Lord Dudley.
It may have been crossed out because of this situation with the law on the
advice of attorneys. It is my theory that Edward was brought up to believe
that his mother was Elizabeth Tomlinson's sister because she was adopted into
the William Tomlinson household as part of an adoption agreement with the
elder Lord Sutton, the pregnant Elizabeth Tomlinson, and her parents William
and Agnes.

Most adoptions of this sort require strict confidentiality. This
confidentiality was kept by Elizabeth Tomlinson and she went to her grave ne
ver revealing the truth to her daughter, the wife of John Bagley -- yet she
made certain that her name was remembered by having Edward Sutton give her
grandchildren some extra money after she died. Elizabeth and Edward both saw
that they were cared for in her lifetime through John Bagley.

I think that Edward Sutton (Lord Dudley) revealed the truth of the
relationship to Edward Bagley well after Elizabeth's death--around the time
of (or shortly before) the 1635 court hearing brought on by Dud Dudley. Dud
Dudley had no idea that John Bagely's wife was his sister when he brought the
suit and Edward Bagley did not know that he was Edward Sutton's grandchild.
When he learned of this, he or his legal counsel realized that it effected
his role in this court case, thus the confusion of the magistrate who wrote
down the nature of the relationship is reflected in the changes made in the
original documents. Therefore, we cannot trust that this court record
reflects the truth of the relationship.

There is evidence that John Bagley had known that his wife was a Sutton from
the time he married her. He named his first male child Edward and his first
female child Elizabeth. There is a logical symmetry to this naming pattern if
his wife's parents were Edward Sutton and Elizabeth Tomlinson. The names of
first born children are quite important.

John Bagley profited greatly from the relationship -- being close to both
Elizabeth and Edward Sutton all his married life and beyond. The extent of
John Bagley's profit might never be known, as there are so many ways to
profit when running a large estate. Needless to say, he was wealthy when he
died and all his children who were not set up with property already were
given homes or farms. I have a copy of his will and it has been posted
before in 1999.

Certainly, Edward knew that his mother was a Sutton by 1637, as he named his
son Sutton Bagley in that year. This was the same year that Dud Dudley took
over the manor house on the Dudley estate and was forcibly removed by John
Bagley. Two years later Dud Dudley again sued the Dudley estate for damages
resulting from that eviction.

In 1643 John Bagley was granted a thousand year lease on lands in Sedgely.
Of course, a thousand years is well beyond his lifetime and this grant can
only be interpreted as Lord Dudley's desire to make life more secure for John
Bagley's descendants. If there were no family relationship there, I doubt
seriously he would have cared that much.

It is clear to me that this line has been tarnished inappropriately with
insufficient evidence, as there are other explanations that fit the facts
much better than that interpretation that was espoused by Charles Hansen and
has continued to this day. Too much trust has been placed in a single mention
of one court record and not enough trust is placed in the additional facts in
the case. My suggestion is DNA testing and comparisons between the Bagley
descendants and the descendants of Edward Sutton.

I might also mention that I have another collateral line linking this family
... it needs some work and some looking up of wills as proofs or
relationships, but I would be happy to share it later with the group and work
on it as a group project. I will not have time to post this for a month or
so, as it has to be transcribed by hand and this is tax time in the USA.

-Ken

Kenneth Harper Finton
Editor and Publisher
THE PLANTAGENET CONNECTION
__________________________________________
HT Communications / PO Box 1401 / Arvada CO 80001
VOICE: 303-420-4888 FAX: 303-420-4845
<A HREF="http://HTCommunications.org/homepage.htm">;
http://HTCommunications.org/homepage.htm</A>;


This thread: